* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #864 / Revived #084 on 2024 11 06 *

That is the point I was making in that the exposure does not need to be "perfect" to get blue skies in scenes like minniev's.

In the GIMP, it looks like you were defeated by the blue channel in this image. Lots of bottomed (almost 14%) and blown (13%) blue values but few in-between ... whereas the red and green histograms look quite normal. When a channel is bottomed to 14% of the count, those pixels become bi-chromatic (only red and green in this case) which is unusual in nature. Similarly, blown pixels may not look right after an attempt at highlight recovery.

The raw histogram would be really interesting, if available.

This kind of thing can happen when Saturation is edited to taste in a wide color space and then the image is converted to sRGB for posting on the web. For example, the classic yellow flower shot coming out with 100% saturated petals in sRGB with no blues in the pixels.

P.S. Messed with the blue channel attempting to recover it - no surprise as to the result:

Forget it. Anybody else?

No problem.

That is way too light now on my screen and not realistic given the sun is low and to the right of the scene judging by the direction and length of the shadow.

Alan's original looks much better to me except I would have lightened the shadows just a little bit, not as much as you did.

Let me have a go. No, Dan didn't answer this earlier (and his use of colour in his own shots doesn't show much awareness of the issue.) There is no such convention. What makes it important in minniev's photo is that it is a complementary colour to the golden tones of the leaves. Having the blue in the sky (and it doesn't need much) enriches the autumn feel because it alters our perception of the leaves. That's what made it perfect.

Thank you. I think we humans visually perceive in a higher dynamic range than the camera does (or at least my camera!), so sometimes, if not overdone, HDR processes can help restore what we saw. I did try some HDR, and some other kinds of blending of multiple exposures to compensate for running out of room on the camera's dynamic range, but didn't get the results I wanted, so reverted to this single capture and just tinkered till I got something that seemed like what I saw. The strong noon sun was actually penetrating the leaves giving a beautiful glow underneath the canopy, that is what I was trying to convey.

Yes, the complementary colors of blue/gold are to me the most compelling combination. It's why I make a trek every fall to see the beautiful foliage changes. That little touch of blue to me made a huge difference in the image so I was determined to preserve it.

Yes he did answer the question but it seems you missed it.

Regarding colours, what brightness have you calibrated your screen to and how have you profiled your screens?

The colours on his screen look how he wants them to look.

Using your own logic in your above quote it can then be justifiably argued that the use of colour in your own shots doesn't show much awareness of the issue as well.

So we could just go round in circles and back and forth ad infinitum.

The colours you see on your screen will not necessarily match exactly the colours others see on their screens for a given image for obvious reasons and vice versa.

You did not miss it, @MikeFewster, because no direct answer was given.

Hi Xpat. That was from me not minniev on this occasion.
G'day Dan. If you wish, I'm happy to continue this discussion with you once this week's thread is about to expire. ie., Wed. afternoon Australian time. I don't like the way these exchanges block up the regular discussions on the thread. It's one of many problems with flat view threads. I only responded at this time because the question from Xpat was taking the discussion into different territory.

We'll just have to disagree on this one.

I really like these images. There is lots to take in and the lighting and colours all seem to blend in quite well. I especially like that there is plenty of light in the courtyard / laneway and we can explore in there with ease. It doesn't matter that there is no one subject - all the parts make the whole.
The weathered brickwork, ornaments, light fittings (love the old style filaments look), greenery, flowers, doorways and windows, paving are all well defined and nothing overly dominates the others.
The first is perhaps a touch less exposed than the second (maybe a cloud passing by?) but not in a diminishing way.
You maybe had others without the man but people inhabit these places so why not. His darker clothing blends in without being too much of an eye magnet.
Re your question about composition. If I was thinking about it (and I often don't) I would have zoomed out a little to get the tops of the windows in the first and to get the white sign on the right hand wall in the second and maybe bring the laneway a little more towards the centre. Zooming out a bit may have provided a natural border to what we see. But we don't know what else may have been there and that may well have introduced something detracting. It is never definitive.

Totally agree as I acknowledged in my reply to minniev's post with her image.

That is an opinion I disagree with because "perfect" implies it cannot be improved in any way.

I fixed the quote tag in my post.

My proof reader is on their last warning now 😠

For me the key to this image is to sit back and take in the whole scene at once.The autumn oranges and yellows blend quite nicely and there is plenty of depth through the greens. The foreground trees provide a nice frame to the path to the old shed, which is well visible but still nestled in, and being reclaimed by, the forest. I tried a crop reducing the foreground a little and the top to balance that (nice panno) but for the effect you have I think the shed cant be any closer.

Yes some awesome shades in the flowers - reminds me of my grandmother's pansies when I was young - and the vase is good too and well matched.